Laurene Powell Jobs Tried to Kill New 'Steve Jobs' Film, Friends Object to Portrayals

[roland.g]

And their formed opinion would be accurate. He cannot be portrayed as a Saint when we was not one. Did he have a vision. Yep, and a lot of people made that happen.

Opinion for anyone is simply that: opinion. It is neither accurate or inaccurate.

Saint. I don't believe I implied that not that it is empirically relevant.

I'm not sure anyone would argue that a lot of people didn't help realize that vision. I think in some cases he is given credit for something that was someone else's vision and that he pushed forward once he saw it.

 

[macfoxpro]

With all due respect to his wife, she cannot rewrite history.

Neither can Hollywood. Wait..... never mind.

 

[Terrinb]

Sometimes it's hard for hero worshippers to read the various truths about their hero.

His wife's refusal to participate when given a warm open invitation by the filmmaker is very revealing.

According to several reports Woz found the film quite accurate.

His wife refused to see it because it was based on Walter Isaacson's book, which was a horribly written shallow book.

She and others like Tim Cook do not want to support Isaacson. Further, what good does screening a completed movie do? Her view was pointless at that point.

Woz? Really? The guy and Steve weren't exactly best friends in the later years, and he was paid 200, 000 dollars to assist with the movie. Is he supposed to say it sucks now being that he is part of the team?

 

[62tele]

Like all matters of this kind the truth probably resides somewhere in between. Was he a giant douche? Maybe to some. Was he benevolent, nurturing? Not if the many stories are true. Did he prod, encourage, motivate, enable folks to design great, sometimes revolutionary products? Yes!
As someone mentioned in a previous reply, folks like Cook and others met him later in his life so perhaps he had mellowed or been humbled by then.
If the reports are true about his long time estrangement from the daughter he fathered (and neglected) then it doesn't speak highly of his character IMO.
He accomplished much but had his inner demons and his failings. I am sure his closest friends, who were by and large successful, had no problems with him and saw him differently. I am sure his wife and children have warm feelings toward him. Some probably had a love/hate relationship with him.
The movie is just a dramatization of how some perceived him.

 

[Terrinb]

I don't think she and Steve see eye to eye on this at all.

Steve talked with Walter Issac for several hours on several days over the course of years. He said he knew there were parts of the book that would make him upset, but he wanted to get it all out there - the good and the bad. It's an amazing book. I didn't come out thinking any less of Jobs from reading it... it just added more depth to him. It was all fascinating. Obviously he wasn't flawless - nobody is.

On the other hand, she:
1 - Simply hates the book (has she even read it?)
2 - Was invited to participate in the movie and declined.
3 - Was invited to see the movie in advance and declined.

She's just combative and not worth listening to, I don't think.

This book was horrible. I didn't learn one thing about Jobs I didn't know before reading the book. What a wasted opportunity. Jobs gave the guy free access, but Isaacson provided us little insight into what makes jobs tick. Literally everything in this book had been written by other people over the years.

Jobs begged the guy to write the book based on his Ben Franklin biography, but The book was shallow and opinionated. Worst it took sides against Jobs on matters such as with Jobs disputes with Bill Gates, Woz, and Real Networks.

The guy also got some of the history wrong concerning the launch of the iPod. It was clearly rushed to capitalize on Jobs sudden death.

 

[a0me]

I wonder why seemingly everyone at Apple hates Isaacson's biography. Jobs gave his blessing on it, and Isaacson had unprecedented access to everyone involved with Apple and Jobs. I thought it was a fair portrait, showing both his obsessiveness and his genius. (The two often go hand in hand.) By the end of the book, I was quite moved by what he had accomplished over his too-brief life, and saddened it all came to an end. I'm not sure what more one could ask from a biography.

I would guess that they wanted a biography that had swept all the negative stuff under the rug.

 

[macs4nw]

It should also be noted that Steve didn't want a warm biography. He told Walter Isaacson to be honest and accurate. It seems like in the face of death, he was willing to face his demons in a way his friends / family are not.

That sounds very plausible, after all compared to brutal honesty, everything else seems fake or contrived.

I believe his family, friends and coworkers' objections are that the movie places too much emphasis on the 'juicy' negative details to make the movie more, shall we say 'interesting'. Iow, for ratings at the expense of 'balance'.

 

[ginkobiloba]

I think the truth of it is that the less than informed masses will likely develop their ideas about who he was from a film such as this because the 'quick give it to me now' society we have isn't usually that likely to learn more beyond what is spoon fed to them. And those who object probably are concerned that a film will give a large audience a very incomplete picture. Look at The Social Network as an example.

A film like this is a dramatized interpretation delivered as a collage of thin and selected/selective slices of time, assembled to tell a version of a story. But without more, many people will base their understanding of the man responsible for their phones on that story.

While a 2 hour biopic movie is and will always be an oversimplification , I think the view they have on Jobs seems very different than in the Social Network. In the latter movie, Zuckerberg is portrayed as antisocial person whose creation ( Facebook) is a useless and shallow contribution to society. Jobs, on the other hand seems to be portrayed as an antisocial person whose creation ( bringing computing to the masses ) is beneficiary to the world. The dark sides of the character may be amplified for drama purposes, but the point of view on their contribution to the world is very different. Sorkin's "Jobs" is almost the antithesis of Sorkin's " The Social Network."

Mr Jobs ran a major corporation. The type of individual who gets to do this is usually not a "good" person. There is a multi-award winning documentary called "The Corporation" (2003). This documentary traces the late 18th century American legal decision that established the business corporation organizational model legally as a person; the corporation as an institution has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.

Of course associates who are in the inner circle of Apple are going to want this movie to fit in with the goals of hugely financed PR department.

This is a corporation and like most corporations it's public image is of smiling executives and the stated goals cooked up by their PR departments.

The actual results of Apple's activities can be seen at huge environmental disaster sites like the vast toxic sludge lake at Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China. Or at the working and living conditions of their manufacturing facilities in China. Or countless other locations world wide.

It takes a certain kind of animal to run such an operation. It is not going to be pretty. This new Steve Jobs movie will let him off very lightly. If it reflected reality there would not be lines to see it.

I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong on very account. That kind of basic oversimplification might work in an old western movie, but not in the real world. It would be too long to tell you how deeply wrong you are, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[happycadaver]

It's a shame she didn't succeed.

 

[2457282]

I wonder why seemingly everyone at Apple hates Isaacson's biography. Jobs gave his blessing on it, and Isaacson had unprecedented access to everyone involved with Apple and Jobs. I thought it was a fair portrait, showing both his obsessiveness and his genius. (The two often go hand in hand.) By the end of the book, I was quite moved by what he had accomplished over his too-brief life, and saddened it all came to an end. I'm not sure what more one could ask from a biography.

I read the book and have these thoughts to share. First is that I did not find the book that well written. It was a bit choppy. Second, I found many of the stories to be insightful into the life of Jobs. In the end, I was happy I read the book, because I felt I understood the man better. I did not agree with many of his life decisions, but could still see the great contributions he made to the world. From what I have heard of the complaints (other than the book not being written all that well), it seems they are not saying of the facts portrayed are wrong, but more like "I wish you would have focused on the positives more." And this is the problem with our history sometimes -- people tend to whitewash things instead of revealing both the good and the bad of history.

 

[bniu]

Is that true? I dunno. Tim Cook seems to be a kinder, gentler type of CEO and yet a pretty good leader. Different styles, I guess.

In reality, any type of CEO can be effective if he/she surrounds themselves with a competent executive team. What makes a competent executive team can change from CEO to CEO. Scott Forstall was effective under Steve, not so effective under Tim.

 

[uwdude]

Guess what, Laurene also said "don't hold anything back, Steve has a lot of skeletons in his closet."

So it's not like she's upset that he was portrayed in any kind of negative light. Laurene and his team at Apple are upset about something else. The accuracy of his portrayal. Sure Isaacson could have all the access in the world, it doesn't matter to his conclusions or interpretation. It's like saying that data creates the conclusion in scientific research. Data only provides context, it doesn't provide the conclusion. It's up to the human interpreting the data to arrive at the conclusion.

Reading through Isaacsons biography, the guy simply didn't get it. Factual errors, or completely missing the mark on some of the most important and well known events of his career. If he can't even piece together important events like the purchase of NeXTStep and the subsequent development of Mac OSX, I'd be highly skeptical of the accuracy of his conclusions for much of the book.

Everyone on here making assumptions about Laurene and Tims motives are completely clueless. No one, except for Laurene and Steves friends, actually know their reasoning for disliking Isaacsons book. None of us actually know Steve Jobs as well. They do. It's ridiculous to accuse them of things when all of us don't have the slightest clue.

Well I wish that the family and friends would come out and say what it is about the book and movie that they don't like so much. Is there a certain event in it that they feel is completely untrue? Or do they feel the personality portrayed is off? It leads to more speculation.

 

[Terrinb]

I read the book and have these thoughts to share. First is that I did not find the book that well written. It was a bit choppy. Second, I found many of the stories to be insightful into the life of Jobs. In the end, I was happy I read the book, because I felt I understood the man better. I did not agree with many of his life decisions, but could still see the great contributions he made to the world. From what I have heard of the complaints (other than the book not being written all that well), it seems they are not saying of the facts portrayed are wrong, but more like "I wish you would have focused on the positives more." And this is the problem with our history sometimes -- people tend to whitewash things instead of revealing both the good and the bad of history.

I could care less if the book had negative things to say about Jobs. Negative is interesting. My problems with the book, besides it not being well written, are it has some history about Apple products just plain wrong, and the author makes unfounded conclusions about certain events (e.g. the dispute with Jobs with Gates).

As a long time Apple admirer I did not learn one thing from the book. Everything in the book could be had from old interviews, news stories, and press releases.

The author essentially wasted a great opportunity to look into the mind of one of the greatest technology leaders of our times, and squandered the opportunity by rehashing old stuff and sometimes doing it inaccurately.

Further just because Jobs asked this guy to write a book, doesn't mean Jobs would have approve of the quality of the final product. Jobs never read the book. My impression was the author rushed to complete the book in light of Jobs sudden death.

 

[SHNXX]

I read both Isaacson's and Becoming Jobs books and came away mostly impressed by Jobs.
I have no idea why people are focusing on the negative; if a reporter were to go around your friends and enemies and wrote a story about you, there will be some dirt on you as well. And the more famous and accomplished you are, the more extreme the accounts on your life from your close friends and worst enemies will be, both negative and positive.

 

[Kabeyun]

In reality, any type of CEO can be effective if he/she surrounds themselves with a competent executive team. What makes a competent executive team can change from CEO to CEO. Scott Forstall was effective under Steve, not so effective under Tim.

Agreed, but as to your example it may be more accurate, or at least more specific, to say that Forstall was protected under Steve, not so protected under Tim.

 

[Bill Killer]

His wife refused to see it because it was based on Walter Isaacson's book, which was a horribly written shallow book.

She and others like Tim Cook do not want to support Isaacson. Further, what good does screening a completed movie do? Her view was pointless at that point.

Woz? Really? The guy and Steve weren't exactly best friends in the later years, and he was paid 200, 000 dollars to assist with the movie. Is he supposed to say it sucks now being that he is part of the team?

Wait, so only Jobs's best friends should be allowed input?

What kind of backwards logic is that?

 

[2457282]

Agreed, but as to your example it may be more accurate, or at least more specific, to say that Forstall was protected under Steve, not so protected under Tim.

Or maybe that scotty was loyal to steve and not tim...

We will probably never really know, except for what spin they put on it.

 

[laurim]

Off topic, but I find it so heartbreaking to see photos of Steve smiling and soldiering on while he's wasting away. And to think that it could've been avoidable is worse. Very sad.

He had a cancer that was almost impossible to cure. I really don't think his death was avoidable and what he did to live his life his own way was the best for him. Sometimes the right decision is not taking every "cure" attempt that actually makes your precious final years excruciating vs simply living your final years the best way you can, your way. Everyone is going to die and none of us know how long that is. And each of us has our own ideas about how we want to live it and end it.

Back on topic, I hate to see real people's lives dramatized for monetary gain. Too many people are too lazy to do anything more than believe when they see in a movie and definitely the people who already have an irrational hatred of Apple will feel vindicated by the drama. Based on that Sorkin tweet about China, he obviously had a certain point of view about Jobs that steered his portrayal of Jobs in a negative direction. If I were Laurene, I wouldn't bother trying to correct that, either, because it's obvious Sorkin wouldn't have listened. Directors tend to have the exact same personality traits Sorkin is ascribing to Jobs. Single-mindedness and don't give two f*cks who disagrees with their decisions.

 

[Bill Killer]

Back on topic, I hate to see real people's lives dramatized for monetary gain. Too many people are too lazy to do anything more than believe when they see in a movie and definitely the people who already have an irrational hatred of Apple will feel vindicated by the drama. Based on that Sorkin tweet about China, he obviously had a certain point of view about Jobs that steered his portrayal of Jobs in a negative direction. If I were Laurene, I wouldn't bother trying to correct that, either, because it's obvious Sorkin wouldn't have listened. Directors tend to have the exact same personality traits Sorkin is ascribing to Jobs. Single-mindedness and don't give two f*cks who disagrees with their decisions.

What you are accusing the filmmakers of doing is exactly what you're doing regarding them.

 

[laurim]

What you are accusing the filmmakers of doing is exactly what you're doing regarding them.

Boo hoo. I feel really bad about that. What would you call that tweet of Sorkin's? A love letter to Apple? Or a crybaby who can't handle criticism and a guy who has a bias against Apple to an extent to where he's willing to slander them online for everyone to see? Doesn't sound like an unbiased director to me. But then, I'm not a Sorkin sycophant.

 

[Bill Killer]

Boo hoo. I feel really bad about that. What would you call that tweet of Sorkin's? A love letter to Apple? Or a crybaby who can't handle criticism and a guy who has a bias against Apple to an extent to where he's willing to slander them online for everyone to see? Doesn't sound like an unbiased director to me. But then, I'm not a Sorkin sycophant.

You're being largely hypocritical, but then again, you're pulling for the eradication of any-and-all works for art based on live events and people, so it's a bit difficult to take much of your soapboxing seriously.

This film isn't a documentary. The need to get every fact correct in chronological order is highly irrelevant (just like people whining about the historical accuracy of The Social Network largely missed the point of the film). It's a work of fiction based on certain realities and accounts of actual people.

Dramatization for the sake of serving the story is a perfectly acceptable substitute, and you know what? Portraying Jobs in a less-than-flattering light is not a sin. In fact, by most account (just not Apple's), he was a prick. But I'm willing to bet the film, despite portraying a number of character flaws, manages to create a Jobs character that is not without redeemable qualities.

Quit whining about Jobs not being given the loving treatment that you and the damage control by Apple want him to be remembered for.

 

[laurim]

You're being largely hypocritical, but then again, you're pulling for the eradication of any-and-all works for art based on live events and people, so it's a bit difficult to take much of your soapboxing seriously.

Your hyperbole exposes your own bias against Apple. I was merely requesting that the real life events of an actual person's life not be distorted for the sake of making more money with a movie. I'm sure you would rather your or your own father's legacy not be tarnished by a director who wants fame and money more than the reputation for being an accurate portrayer of history and a person who doesn't advance their career on the grave of a dead man. If Sorkin simply wanted to make a drama, he should have done like they do on the crime shows and portray dramatized real life events while changing all the names so it's clear that it doesn't actually represent reality.

 

[Mystic386]

I don't think she and Steve see eye to eye on this at all.

Steve talked with Walter Issac for several hours on several days over the course of years. He said he knew there were parts of the book that would make him upset, but he wanted to get it all out there - the good and the bad. It's an amazing book. I didn't come out thinking any less of Jobs from reading it... it just added more depth to him. It was all fascinating. Obviously he wasn't flawless - nobody is.

On the other hand, she:
1 - Simply hates the book (has she even read it?)
2 - Was invited to participate in the movie and declined.
3 - Was invited to see the movie in advance and declined.

She's just combative and not worth listening to, I don't think.

I don't get how not participating in material she doesn't support makes her combative and not worth listening to. If you don't support something and are opposed to it, really it doesn't matter how many times you get asked, "No means no!".

And beyond that your statement becomes even weaker when you consider the result of attending.. "LP participated and didn't like it" or "LP saw the advance movie and did't like it". Any association results in more publicity for the movie.

For me Steve was the Renaissance Man and let's put this all in perspective, he built successful companies that are at the top of their fields in short periods of time, by all accounts he has a great family unit. Steve excelled at stuff. When we're in our 20's we can all be a little aggressive and arrogant. We all make mistakes. Why the need to amplify the mistakes to challenge the legend of who he is. At the end our mistakes are a footnote in our lives, it's the good we do that matters.

 

[Bill Killer]

Your hyperbole exposes your own bias against Apple. I was merely requesting that the real life events of an actual person's life not be distorted for the sake of making more money with a movie. I'm sure you would rather your or your own father's legacy not be tarnished by a director who wants fame and money more than the reputation for being an accurate portrayer of history and a person who doesn't advance their career on the grave of a dead man. If Sorkin simply wanted to make a drama, he should have done like they do on the crime shows and portray dramatized real life events while changing all the names so it's clear that it doesn't actually represent reality.

My own bias against Apple? I own a number of Apple devices, you dolt. And my opinions of the products themselves should in no way, shape, or form influence my opinion of the film. The "spirit of Steve" does not live in my iPhone.

You are putting Jobs, the man, on a pedestal that he has not earned. He was a very public figure for one of the most recognizable companies in the world, and if his life presents an intriguing and thought-provoking story worth telling, then the Apple cult has to face the facts that the story is worth telling on a mass level. You can't hide history; you can't shape public perception because it doesn't fit in with your views.

By your spotty logic, no historical dramas should ever be made regarding Civil War because Lincoln's descendants may not like the story of their ancestor being told. A World War II bio in Nazi Germany shouldn't be told because Hitler can't defend himself.

The fact is that none of you, and myself included, have seen the film, yet those who feel outrageously and overly protective of Jobs's image have already declared the film an attack on him and his family. Talk about close-mindedness, despite the fact that reviewers have outright lauded the film for being a fantastic character study.

Get over yourself.

 

[bladerunner2000]

Not surprising, Apple's had a history of cherry picking bias reviews. Laurene Powell Jobs will just have to deal with ol' Steve being shown as a monster that he was. Oh well.